Ah, but you can't fool the algorithms!

[7774]

So you would bet Houston, Alabama, UNC and BYU against UConn straight up on a neutral court?

If I was forced to bet I wouldn’t bet them straight up because most of them would open as underdogs and then would be bet to bigger underdogs by people like you and then I could just get that number.

That‘s kind of the point. Exploiting the gap between what the metrics say and what’s believed by people who post that Houston has been disappointing in the NCAA tournament recently.

 

[7774]

Ha, well, the reason they're so successful is there's vig on every bet and they almost always make money on every game regardless of who wins.

Lol yeah that is definitely a huge part of it.

 

[my2cents]

Who gives a hoot about those ranking models? It is not football, where only 4 teams get a chance to win it all. Basketball has a tournament to determine who becomes number one.
All I know is that whatever negative can be brought up about UCONN in the national media, it is.
We become AP#1, and all you hear is that it's the first time since 2009...when we have won multiple national titles since then.

 

[superjohn]

Torvik, BPI, KenPom, Haslam and NET all have Houston at 1. Yes, today, Houston would absolutely open as a favorite against UConn on a neutral floor.

I don't gamble on games, especially UConn games but that would be easy money.

 

[The Yakk]

If your theory is that large public companies are lazy, and not setting spreads to equalize the money bet on each team so that they maximize profits … well, let’s just say you need a new theory.

Lol that's a common myth, but the sports books are definitely not setting spreads to equalize the money bet on each team. And even if they could do that, that is not how they would maximize their profits. That would certainly eliminate all the risk, but the books are willing to put their capital at risk for the sake of bigger profits.

Sports books absolutely take positions on the games, and they do it with a level of research and analysis that is far more refined than most bettors'. They are betting against the public, and winning.

A better way to think of it: the sports books want to solicit bets in a proportion that optimizes the outcome of their risk/reward analysis, which is not necessarily an equal amount bet on each side.

 

[jleves]

Lol that's a common myth, but the sports books are definitely not setting spreads to equalize the money bet on each team. And even if they could do that, that is not how they would maximize their profits. That would certainly eliminate all the risk, but the books are willing to put their capital at risk for the sake of bigger profits.

Sports books absolutely take positions on the games, and they do it with a level of research and analysis that is far more refined than most bettors'. They are betting against the public, and winning.

A better way to think of it: the sports books want to solicit bets in a proportion that optimizes the outcome of their risk/reward analysis, which is not necessarily an equal amount bet on each side.

They use this guy

 

[The Yakk]

They use this guy

View attachment 95459

Lol yes definitely, backed by state-of-the-art computer models as well as insider knowledge that we will never see.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Houston is REALLY liked by the metrics. We're not close to them there right now. They're considered 2021 Baylor/Gonzaga level right now. They went up since B12 play as well. We would be given a ton of consideration for injuries. It wouldn't make up the difference between them and us. Straight off the metrics (both KenPom and Evan Miya) they'd be 7 point favorites over us. Vegas would list it a bit closer (maybe 4 or so), and then I expect the public would bet it even closer and then Vegas would live with being on Houston's side.

This Houston/BYU game is definitely one of the games circled on my calendar. Curious to see the Houston D against a borderline elite offense. Really haven’t played anyone close to that yet.

 

[navery12]

The only thing this thread has shown is that the people who hate the analytics sites have no idea how to even read the info on them

 

[superjohn]

This Houston/BYU game is definitely one of the games circled on my calendar. Curious to see the Houston D against a borderline elite offense. Really haven’t played anyone close to that yet.

BYU has looked awful the times I've seen them.

 

[uh-no]

The only thing this thread has shown is that the people who hate the analytics sites have no idea how to even read the info on them

lol yeah. "but it doesn't consider that not all wins or home court are equal!"

yes. that's literally what it does.

 

[Husky68]

If you don't like those numbers, take a look at Strength of Record. An evaluation of how a team has done against their schedule to this point. Purdue 1, UConn 2.

2025-26 Resume Men's College Basketball Power Index - ESPN

View the 2025-26 Resume Men's College Basketball power index on ESPN. The BPI is the best predictor of a team's performance of the season.

www.espn.com

I like any index that has Duke below Seton Hall but I'm not buying Fruit at #25.

 

[zls44]

"KenPom doesn't consider home court or the refs at all!"

Meanwhile

 

[giddyup]

The best know predictor of outcome is the scoreboard at the end of the game. Just take care of business, and improve. We are not nearly good enough when Clingan isn’t on the floor to dominate.

 

[tzznandrew]

They made S16, E8, F4 last 3 years as 1, 5, and 2 seeds. A little below one year, a little above 2 years.

And last year Sasser was slowed in the NCAAs if I remember right.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Teams in the Big Xii and SEC are playing a tougher game in, game out schedule than we are, and we played SIX games OOC against really God awful basketball teams. Not one or two. Six. It doesn’t take a computer genius to wonder if teams that don’t play so many so awful teams might get a boost for that.

We’re playing really well, are #1 in the polls and are in a good place to win our first conference championship in 18 years. If the computer models bother you, why don’t you just take advantage of them by betting heavily on the Huskies every game and view it as an opportunity instead of something to worry about?

Kenpom has the Big East ahead of the SEC. Are you saying you disagree with KenPom or you agree with KenPom?

 

[cordeodato]

It' sports. Brian Cashman gets deceived by algorithms every year.I have a feeling the the Yankees have more money to spend
on programmers and data miners than Ken Pom. Too many variables and mutations galore.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Including Margin of Victory beyond some simple, minor level was always a bad idea, because it would lead to teams like this year's BYU, that are OK but are pounding teams when they get up so they look very good in the analytics.

I think there should be an analytics of the analytics. I would like to see an analysis of what each team's win prediction was in the middle of December compared to where each team ended up, calculated by analytics' system, measured by actuals standard deviation to mid-December prediction.

The RPI was fine and simple for measuring the quality of a teams' record, and easy for coaches and fans to understand. Now we have a bunch of black boxes that no one really has any idea if they produce good information or not. There may not be another field in the world where a model that is widely used is not audited, peer reviewed or available for assessment to the people who use it.

 

[Mots010]

Who were metric darlings in late January last season? It sure as hell wasn’t UConn after we lost the whole month. We became metric darlings as we started stacking win after win, and then started winning with blowouts in March and April.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

The best know predictor of outcome is the scoreboard at the end of the game. Just take care of business, and improve. We are not nearly good enough when Clingan isn’t on the floor to dominate.

 

[auror]

Who were metric darlings in late January last season? It sure as hell wasn’t UConn after we lost the whole month. We became metric darlings as we started stacking win after win, and then started winning with blowouts in March and April.

There weren't any to the same degree last year. Every team in the KenPom top 10 on Jan 23rd last year was in the top 18 of WAB resume metric too. Tennessee was #18 in WAB and #2 in KenPom, though, I guess that is a significant difference. They had a key injury at the end of the year and still made S16 as a 4 seed. Creighton was probably the closest thing to a scoring margin warrior. They were 13th in KenPom, 17th in Torvik, and 60th in WAB. They almost made the F4. But 13th hardly counts for "darling" status.

This year, Alabama at #8 is 32nd in WAB. BYU at #10 is 30th. Iowa St at #12 is 33rd. The top 7 though, are all in the top 12 of WAB. It's a pretty good top 7 (Houston, Purdue, Arizona, UConn, UNC, Auburn, Tennessee). I would be surprised if the champion didn't come from those 7 teams.

 

[3rdbass]

This is a lot easier than some are making it. UConn is essentially two different teams, based on if Donovan Clingan takes the court or not, combined into one ranking.

When UConn has Clingan, it is at least a top 3 team and the computers reflect that. With a healthy roster, UConn is in the clear top tier with Houston (I think Houston’s defensive extremes kind of break the algorithms but that’s a topic for another day) and Purdue, and UConn would easily be favored over every other team mentioned.

Without Donovan, UConn has not performed like a top 3 team and is probably more of a top 15-20 type team. Without him, we would not be favored against teams like UNC, Arizona or Tennessee and very few of us would (realistically) pick us to beat those teams on a neutral court based on what we saw without Donovan available.

Right now, we’ve had him for 2/3 of our game and not for 1/3 and the rankings reflect that split. The more games Donovan plays, the more our rankings will reflect that full strength version.

I would pick us to beat 2 of those 3. Arizona will be tough but I was impressed how we looked with Donavan out.

 

[twiceahusky]

Lol that's a common myth, but the sports books are definitely not setting spreads to equalize the money bet on each team. And even if they could do that, that is not how they would maximize their profits. That would certainly eliminate all the risk, but the books are willing to put their capital at risk for the sake of bigger profits.

Sports books absolutely take positions on the games, and they do it with a level of research and analysis that is far more refined than most bettors'. They are betting against the public, and winning.

A better way to think of it: the sports books want to solicit bets in a proportion that optimizes the outcome of their risk/reward analysis, which is not necessarily an equal amount bet on each side.

Are there any books or verified sources on this? It makes sense, but I always assumed they just balanced the money by sliding the line, and took the vig.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

I don't know.

If you can find a place to make a bet after the game's over, you gotta be able to do better than the fools who take their chances and bet before they know. Think about it.

Maybe it's as easy as just finding the right betting site that's a little more flexible with an abstract concept like time and not so picky about rules & such. Maybe back off on being a semantics-wielding buzz kill flexing superiority with bold formatting.

 

[Leebo]

Who were metric darlings in late January last season? It sure as hell wasn’t UConn after we lost the whole month. We became metric darlings as we started stacking win after win, and then started winning with blowouts in March and April.

On Torvik, UConn entered the skid #4 and left it #7. Were you thinking it would have been more dramatic?

 

[uh-no]

Who were metric darlings in late January last season? It sure as hell wasn’t UConn after we lost the whole month. We became metric darlings as we started stacking win after win, and then started winning with blowouts in March and April.

lol uconn never dropped below 6 kenpom during the skid last year. they were metric darlings for almost the entire year. it was the pundits who ruled them out.

 

[Mots010]

lol uconn never dropped below 6 kenpom during the skid last year. they were metric darlings for almost the entire year. it was the pundits who ruled them out.

I did think was more dramatic, but we looked like we forgot how to play basketball during that January stretch. No one anywhere thought we were a threat after losing that 6th game. Hell, after nearly blowing a huge lead to providence then losing to Marquette in the BET, no one predicted we’d blowout every game in the NCAA’s.

Honest question, are the metrics telling us we’re not as good as we think? We look so damn tough this year.

 

[pepband99]

It's not rocket science. We played about as expected vs creighton and villanova (worse on O, better on D). You don't move up in KP by playing as predicted.

This is still the simplest and most correct answer to the OP. Kenpom, in particular, is meant to be predictive. It's amazing a thread like this starts right after a game KenPom predicted as a 2 point win, and we ended up winning by one, almost on the numbers, too.

I always have the same answer for people who shun the numbers - make a better one. You'll be rich beyond your wildest dreams, if successful.

The alternative - a poll (which is usually filled out by half-interested journalists, and the 5th assistant for the coaches poll) isn't a great measure of anything.

 

[navery12]

I did think was more dramatic, but we looked like we forgot how to play basketball during that January stretch. No one anywhere thought we were a threat after losing that 6th game. Hell, after nearly blowing a huge lead to providence then losing to Marquette in the BET, no one predicted we’d blowout every game in the NCAA’s.

Honest question, are the metrics telling us we’re not as good as we think? We look so damn tough this year.

No, the metrics are saying we're one of a handful of teams with a chance to win the championship this year. Just like they did in January last year. Just because you overreacted to a bad month last year doesn't mean everyone else here did the same thing

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

I don't know how many people will understand this nuance, but...

Calling models like Kenpom and Torvik "predictive" is wrong. The term you're looking for is "indicative," because those models are not even structured in a way that predictions can be made without adding further logic to the data.

And no, this is not pedantic. If Kenpom was analyzed as a results based predictive model, it would fail horribly. It's frequently incorrect on that granular level.